If Obama believes in Global Warming why did he buy oceanfront property at Martha's Vineyard?

[CrusaderFrank]

Since they require evidence and you do not, how do you come to that conclusion?

We’re all still breathlessly waiting the AGWCult posting an experiment controlling for CO2

 

[Crick]

We’re all still breathlessly waiting the AGWCult posting an experiment controlling for CO2

Global Temperature and Human Activity | Econofact

The relationship between temperature and greenhouse gas emissions can be analyzed using economic methods, which provide external validation of climate models.

econofact.org

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

19january2017snapshot.epa.gov

Causes of Climate Change | US EPA

Burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity.

www.epa.gov

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since they require evidence and you do not, how do you come to that conclusion?

We’re all still breathlessly waiting the AGWCult posting an experiment controlling for CO2

View attachment 1001300

Global Temperature and Human Activity | Econofact

The relationship between temperature and greenhouse gas emissions can be analyzed using economic methods, which provide external validation of climate models.

econofact.org

View attachment 1001304

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

View attachment 1001308

Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA

19january2017snapshot.epa.gov

View attachment 1001309

Causes of Climate Change | US EPA

Burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity.

www.epa.gov

See?

Still not an experiment controlling for CO2!

Amazing!

You showed us you won't control for CO2, yet expect us to believe CO2 became a G-d molecule in 1850, suddenly DRIVING the climate, an 800,000 year dataset showing CO2 lagging for 800,000 years notwithstanding

You posted Cult banners, not science

 

[Crick]

We’re all still breathlessly waiting the AGWCult posting an experiment controlling for CO2


See?

Still not an experiment controlling for CO2!

Amazing!

You showed us you won't control for CO2, yet expect us to believe CO2 became a G-d molecule in 1850, suddenly DRIVING the climate, an 800,000 year dataset showing CO2 lagging for 800,000 years notwithstanding

You posted Cult banners, not science

It's far better than you actually deserve Frank.

 

[ding]

It's far better than you actually deserve Frank.

What is the instantaneous GHG effect of a doubling of CO2 absent any feedbacks?

 

[Crick]

We’re all still breathlessly waiting the AGWCult posting an experiment controlling for CO2


See?

Still not an experiment controlling for CO2!

Amazing!

You showed us you won't control for CO2, yet expect us to believe CO2 became a G-d molecule in 1850, suddenly DRIVING the climate, an 800,000 year dataset showing CO2 lagging for 800,000 years notwithstanding

You posted Cult banners, not science

I give up attempting to educate you. Here you go.

A simple experiment on global warming | Royal Society Open Science

A simple experiment has been developed to demonstrate the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the Earth's atmosphere. A miniature electric resistance heating element was placed inside an inflatable balloon. The balloon was filled with ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

PS: Don't lose this. I'll keep the link myself. We can talk about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I give up attempting to educate you. Here you go.

A simple experiment on global warming | Royal Society Open Science

A simple experiment has been developed to demonstrate the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the Earth's atmosphere. A miniature electric resistance heating element was placed inside an inflatable balloon. The balloon was filled with ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

PS: Don't lose this. I'll keep the link myself. We can talk about it.

Please do!

Amazing how you go to these lengths to prove beyond's any doubt that you cannot reproduce any scientific experiment demonstrating a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2

You saw that the second balloon was 100% CO2, right?

The graphs show almost no difference between the 2 balloon at 100% CO2. At 120 PPM delta would the results be only .04% of virtually nothing?

 

[Crick]

Please do!

Amazing how you go to these lengths to prove beyond's any doubt that you cannot reproduce any scientific experiment demonstrating a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2

You saw that the second balloon was 100% CO2, right?

The graphs show almost no difference between the 2 balloon at 100% CO2. At 120 PPM delta would the results be only .04% of virtually nothing?

Yes. And they explained why and how they changed the amount of CO2 the outgoing IR encountered and how it behaved precisely as their mathematical model predicted.


ABSTRACT
A simple experiment has been developed to demonstrate the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. A miniature electric resistance heating element was placed inside an inflatable balloon. The balloon was filled with either air or CO2. Whereas the CO2 partial pressure on the earth’satmosphere is approximately4×10−4 atm, in this experiment, a high partial pressure of CO2 (1 atm) was used to compensate for the short radiation absorption path in the balloon. The element was heated to approximately 50°C, the power was then switched off and the element’s cooling trends in air and in CO2 were monitored. It took a longer time to cool the heating element back to ambient temperature in CO2 than in air. It also took longer times to cool the element in larger size balloons and in pressurized balloons when they were filled with CO2. To the contrary, the balloon size or pressure made no difference when the balloons were filled with air. A simple mathematical model was developed, and it confirmed that the radiative heat loss from the element decreased significantly in CO2. This investigation showed that the cooling rate of an object, with surface temperature akin to temperatures found on Earth, is reduced in a CO2-rich atmosphere because of the concomitant lower heat loss to its environment.

I don't understand what enjoyment you experience constantly being thought ignorant by those with whom you associate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes. And they explained why and how they changed the amount of CO2 the outgoing IR encountered and how it behaved precisely as their mathematical model predicted.


ABSTRACT
A simple experiment has been developed to demonstrate the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. A miniature electric resistance heating element was placed inside an inflatable balloon. The balloon was filled with either air or CO2. Whereas the CO2 partial pressure on the earth’satmosphere is approximately4×10−4 atm, in this experiment, a high partial pressure of CO2 (1 atm) was used to compensate for the short radiation absorption path in the balloon. The element was heated to approximately 50°C, the power was then switched off and the element’s cooling trends in air and in CO2 were monitored. It took a longer time to cool the heating element back to ambient temperature in CO2 than in air. It also took longer times to cool the element in larger size balloons and in pressurized balloons when they were filled with CO2. To the contrary, the balloon size or pressure made no difference when the balloons were filled with air. A simple mathematical model was developed, and it confirmed that the radiative heat loss from the element decreased significantly in CO2. This investigation showed that the cooling rate of an object, with surface temperature akin to temperatures found on Earth, is reduced in a CO2-rich atmosphere because of the concomitant lower heat loss to its environment.

I don't understand what enjoyment you experience constantly being thought ignorant by those with whom you associate.

If you looked at the graphs you’d see a small differential between the 2 balloons, with the control balloon at 100% CO2

I wonder why they didn’t run the experiment at air with .04% CO2?

 

[Crick]

If you looked at the graphs you’d see a small differential between the 2 balloons, with the control balloon at 100% CO2

I wonder why they didn’t run the experiment at air with .04% CO2?

They explained that in the Abstract. Did you not get far enough into it to read the single paragraph of the Abstract at the very top of the linked article or the one copied directly into my last post? WtF is wrong with you Frank?

 

[EMH]

And they explained why and how they changed the amount of CO2 the outgoing IR encountered and how it behaved precisely as their mathematical model predicted

But in reality we have satellites and balloons, and they both showed NO WARMING in the Earth's atmosphere despite rising Co2 for decades.

 

[EMH]

What is the instantaneous GHG effect of a doubling of CO2 absent any feedbacks?

According to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data, precisely NOTHING.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They explained that in the Abstract. Did you not get far enough into it to read the single paragraph of the Abstract at the very top of the linked article or the one copied directly into my last post? WtF is wrong with you Frank?

I read it through at no point do they even attempt to explain how 100% CO2 is equal to .04% CO2.

The formulas were beyond my skills or interest level

My takeaway was: Gee, the charts of 100% CO2 is nearly identical to the air readings. That probably would yield identical charting at .04% CO2

Please show me where they said .04% CO2 = 100% CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data, precisely NOTHING.

If you look at the charts in the abstract, they too show near nothing, almost no difference even at a 100% CO2 atmosphere

It’s worth reading for that alone

 

[Crick]

If you look at the charts in the abstract, they too show near nothing, almost no difference even at a 100% CO2 atmosphere

It’s worth reading for that alone

The graphs show a distinct difference between cooling time of air and the cooling time of CO2 AND differences in cooling time from changes in the CO2 path length. NO such differences were seen in the balloons filled with air. I know you don't want to admit that you've been wrong about everything for the last several years, but you have. Man up.

 

[EMH]

If you look at the charts in the abstract, they too show near nothing, almost no difference even at a 100% CO2 atmosphere

It’s worth reading for that alone

Co2 absorbs a tiny portion of the EM spectrum on the weak side. Other gasses absorb other parts of EM, O3 absorbing powerful UV.

The atmosphere and all the "greenhouse gas" bullshit and "solar cycle" is all 100% blown away by the truth that

GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED


Atmosphere and everything in atmosphere eliminated as suspects for cause of Earth climate change.

The atmosphere is not the cause. The Sun is not the cause.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The graphs show a distinct difference between cooling time of air and the cooling time of CO2 AND differences in cooling time from changes in the CO2 path length. NO such differences were seen in the balloons filled with air. I know you don't want to admit that you've been wrong about everything for the last several years, but you have. Man up.

Do you understand the difference between 100% and .04%?

 

[Crick]

Do you understand the difference between 100% and .04%?

Yes. Do you not understand the reason that was done? If you want to do so something in the lab, you get to use scaling. You really don't have a choice. Your fundamental weakness on science shows here Frank.

Here is a useful 'factoid' from Quora. "If the 100 km of the mesosphere, stratosphere, and troposphere were all at the same density as at sea-level, the atmosphere would be 8 km thick. If the thermosphere and exosphere were added to that, it would be a few metres thicker." So the effective path through 0.04% CO2 atmosphere that an escaping ray of IR light in the real world has to pass is 8 km thick. The balloons are 65/75/85 cm in diameter and thus have path lengths half that. Let's say 40 cm. Thus the IR in the balloons have 1/20,000th of the length to pass through as would a ray in the actual atmosphere. 100% / 0.04% = 2,500. 2500 / 20,000 = 0.125. The pure CO2 balloons are thus only experiencing 1/8th the CO2 effect of passing through the real atmosphere.

The conclusion remains the same. NO effect could be discerned of increases in the path length through air. Clear effects were seen of increases in the path length through CO2. CO2 absorbs infrared and slows its release. Whine about the scaling all you want Frank but all it does is demonstrate your science ignorance and irrationality in the face of more evidence that your position is simply wrong.

 

[ding]

According to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data, precisely NOTHING.

Incorrect. 1C per doubling of CO2. That's it. It's not 4.5C or 0 C.

 

[MisterBeale]

Incorrect. 1C per doubling of CO2. That's it. It's not 4.5C or 0 C.

I found the conversation between Rogan and Thiel on this topic interesting.

"Climate Science?"

Planting trees is ridiculous? The greenies are saying this? Really?