If CO2 is so powerful, why are there no experiments?

[jc456]

So in other words this decision was a political one based on negligible scientific evidence.

I wouldn't say it was negligible. There is an unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2. Other than the last two decades there was a rise in global temperature. So they made a connection and all scientists seem to agree.

wrongly you know correct?

 

[Wuwei]

Of course not-----the irrationality of it would be exposed

You are rather quick with their temperaments. As I said before why don't the deniers then clamor for more CO2 experiments?

 

[jc456]

Of course not-----the irrationality of it would be exposed

You are rather quick with their temperaments. As I said before why don't the deniers then clamor for more CO2 experiments?

we have. the reason there aren't any is they know they will show scientists are wrong and loose funding. It's really quite simple

 

[Wuwei]

wrongly you know correct

I have no idea what is happening or will happen in the climate, so I will not jump to any conclusions about whether it's correct or not.

 

[Wuwei]

we have. the reason there aren't any is they know they will show scientists are wrong and loose funding. It's really quite simple

I don't think it's that simple. There are lots of deep pockets that would love to pull the rug from under the IPCC. Why don't they fund the experiment.

 

[jc456]

wrongly you know correct

I have no idea what is happening or will happen in the climate, so I will not jump to any conclusions about whether it's correct or not.

I will. It's been a subject since the 1800s. An experiment was done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch and he proved that man isn't causing any warming. the deniers all say his experiment is in error, yet, if you research the internet, you will not find one that can refute it. So?

 

[jc456]

we have. the reason there aren't any is they know they will show scientists are wrong and loose funding. It's really quite simple

I don't think it's that simple. There are lots of deep pockets that would love to pull the rug from under the IPCC. Why don't they fund the experiment.

but the IPCC already agreed in the AR5 report. they stay careful by saying words such as high probability x could occur. or they love the excess heat language which to date no science major can explain.

 

[Wuwei]

I will. It's been a subject since the 1800s. An experiment was done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch and he proved that man isn't causing any warming. the deniers all say his experiment is in error, yet, if you research the internet, you will not find one that can refute it. So?

I don't recall Herr Koch concluding that. Give me a reference, I don't have enough time for that right now.

 

[Wuwei]

but the IPCC already agreed in the AR5 report. they stay careful by saying words such as high probability x could occur. or they love the excess heat language which to date no science major can explain.

I don't think that is a reason that the deep pockets should not fund an experiment.

 

[jc456]

I will. It's been a subject since the 1800s. An experiment was done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch and he proved that man isn't causing any warming. the deniers all say his experiment is in error, yet, if you research the internet, you will not find one that can refute it. So?

I don't recall Herr Koch concluding that. Give me a reference, I don't have enough time for that right now.

ask old socks, he has the site. he's only posted twenty or fifty times to date.Climate something. It wasn't on my list of things to do today.

 

[jc456]

I will. It's been a subject since the 1800s. An experiment was done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch and he proved that man isn't causing any warming. the deniers all say his experiment is in error, yet, if you research the internet, you will not find one that can refute it. So?

I don't recall Herr Koch concluding that. Give me a reference, I don't have enough time for that right now.

ask old socks, he has the site. he's only posted twenty or fifty times to date.Climate something. It wasn't on my list of things to do today.

here it is: I did a search.

Why yes it does. And also contains this paragraph;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

Real stupid of you to demonstrate the obvious types of lies that you constantly tell.

 

[Wuwei]

here it is: I did a search.

Thanks for the reference. What Old Rocks says seems reasonable. Now I remember that Angstrom and Koch didn't quite understand how saturation should be treated. Old R is right in that the ultimate loss at the TOA is what is important above all else.

 

[jc456]

here it is: I did a search.

Thanks for the reference. What Old Rocks says seems reasonable. Now I remember that Angstrom and Koch didn't quite understand how saturation should be treated. Old R is right in that the ultimate loss at the TOA is what is important above all else.

ahh, but what it proved is that CO2 can only absorb so much, and that is sort of the problem with the crazy. And as I stated, no one has provided another since. So, why not?

 

[Wuwei]

ahh, but what it proved is that CO2 can only absorb so much, and that is sort of the problem with the crazy. And as I stated, no one has provided another since. So, why not?

I don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean can "only absorb so much"? Are you talking about saturation? Then you should say absorb it all. What do you mean by "problem with the crazy"? No one has provided what since? Why not what?

I'm not challenging you, I just don't understand your terminology.

 

[Vigilante]

300,000 TONS of CO2 produced by the idiots going to, and leaving .... While accomplishing NOTHING as none of the supposed regulations are MANDATORY!

 

[jc456]

ahh, but what it proved is that CO2 can only absorb so much, and that is sort of the problem with the crazy. And as I stated, no one has provided another since. So, why not?

I don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean can "only absorb so much"? Are you talking about saturation? Then you should say absorb it all. What do you mean by "problem with the crazy"? No one has provided what since? Why not what?

I'm not challenging you, I just don't understand your terminology.

It is logarithmic

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Global Warming denier cult is dying a slow death. They'll flail their arms with their tired worn out lying rhetoric but the die is cast. The entire world now, except for the backwards weirdo conservatives in the US, all understand the science and see it for the abhorrent danger it is.

All you have to do is ignore the deniers and keep in mind, it is the world of a few message board angries against the combined lifetime knowledge of 10,000 PH.D's around the world. Who stated 15 years ago the science on this was settled.

The fossil fuel industry is living on borrowed time now. We'll see if they seize the moment and invest in solar and other renewables or if they ride their coal driven ship to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Programmer]

Don't worry about this anymore, they've just moved on to the muslim peace consensus.

Coast is clear.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you're saying that a .01% change in CO2 won't raise temperature in a lab setting? Why is it "prohibitively expensive" to alter the atmosphere by .01%?

Also, it's the AGWCult's stupid Theory, they need to do the lab work

It is prohibitively expensive to construct a good experiment, not to alter the atmosphere by .01%.
This is not the first thread asking about an experiment. In a previous thread any experiment in a lab that was cited was rightly criticized for being inadequate to make a direct (non-model) conclusion about the earth atmosphere. At the .04% level you simply need a lot of interaction volume before you can emulate the atmosphere. That volume has to have a tall vertical component to see just how gravity affects the process. As I said there is no motive for warmers to do an experiment; but there is for deniers. Why should warmers feel a need to? Politics is on their side now.

Excuse me? Did I read that correctly? It is easier to raise the GLOBAL atmospheric content by .01% than it is to run a relatively simple experiment? You really think that?

OK, then run that relatively simple experiment, mr. Phd Geologist. And why have you not already ran that experiment that would falsify AGW? Why has not any reputable scientist done that?

Silly ass, the whole world demonstrated how stupid they believe you and those like you are at Paris this month. And Congress gave our President the funds to implement our part of the treaty.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, if you haven't eliminated all of the variables, how can you say CO2 is causing the warming or change or whatever it's called today?

That's the problem. How do you design an experiment that is broad enough to eliminate all the variables. Simple experiments and calculations might show that CO2 is causing backradiation, and can act as a sort of barrier to heat loss, but to actually determine exactly how it affects the earth with all the other complexities is the real problem.

So in other words this decision was a political one based on negligible scientific evidence.

So in other words assholes like you are going to lie continually about this. But you have already lost. And any opinions you have on other subjects will now be regarded as questionable in light of your inability to accept reality on this issue.