Liminal
Gold Member
As if you conducted an experiment of your own.
Post the Experiment
- Thread starter jc456
- Start date
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,761
- 39,231
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #222
nope, I never claimed any alarmist post about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Why should I, I have no fear of CO2. It is the warmists on here. And they claimed to have a thousand experiments that prove that CO2 is bad. I just ask for one. still haven't seen one fit the bill yet. So, you got one?
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
OK so it isn't 30 feet, it's 32.8 ft (=10 meters). (Were you making a joke?) Can you find a source for your 90% absorption at 1 meter? I don't seem to get that result.
According to the following graph, even at 10 meters CO2 still transmits about 85% which means it absorbs only 15%. It is only when the length is near 100 meters that the absorption approaches 90%. If that is true, it would not allow for a very realistic experiment in a 3 foot (=0.914 meters) box.
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
There may be a lot of experiments that show the properties of CO2 absorption and scattering of certain IR wavelengths, but there there are few experiments such as the mythbusters that show what CO2 does as far as temperatures changing. Even then their experiment doesn't show what is actually going on in the climate.
I am also personally tired of the catastrophic dire warnings. But I try to keep rants and insults to a minimum. It does no good as far as convincing anyone on the borderline and only causes ranting back from the other side. Doing rants on this forum has the benefit of getting more "thank you" strokes from your friends but that's about it.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,761
- 39,231
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #225
yep. Especially using the word denier. Still not sure what that means.
I deny? I know that I deny nothing, so I never know who it is that reference is for. Perhaps themselves.
as for experimental value, one can show what will happen in an environment with incrementally adding CO2 in a box. Sorry, I can't believe that isn't possible. I think, there have been experiments and it doesn't prove the alarmists position at all. So they sequester them.
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
Just to be fair, I use both terms, warmer and denier because both sides can be a bit too extreme.
As far as sequestering results, that borders on a conspiracy theory. If the experiment is easy, it would be done by many who would shout the positive or negative results to the world. If the experiment is hard, which I maintain, it would be expensive and there would have to be a grant. I don't think it could be kept secret because too many would know
As far as sequestering results, that borders on a conspiracy theory. If the experiment is easy, it would be done by many who would shout the positive or negative results to the world. If the experiment is hard, which I maintain, it would be expensive and there would have to be a grant. I don't think it could be kept secret because too many would know
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
You may want to post the year stamp on this one.. 06-07-2015... Because it wont be forthcoming any time soon.. until they can quantify mans contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere with any certainty and the earths response it wont be possible.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Funny; They wont post up the experiment or any verifiable/reproducible science facts yet somehow the science is magically settled..
mamooth
Diamond Member
Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
HITRAN
That's been presented to jc before. He says those hundred papers don't count. Because he says so. He doesn't need any other reasons.
We've shown him many other experiments. jc says they all don't count. And never gives a reason. jc, along with Billy, just declare the last century of physics never happened, and they're sticking to that purely out of religious faith.
At this point, jc tends to run for cover by lying about the Koch experiment. Even his own source says he's full of shit, so jc pretends not to have seen that part of his source. This would be what jc always deliberately leaves out.
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.
---
jc, discuss the science. It's not honest to present an argument, and then deliberately leave out the next paragraphs that show the fatal flaws of the argument. That sort of chronic dishonesty is why nobody outside of your cult gives you the time of day, and never will, no matter how often you lie about not being shown the experiments.
Now, if you'd like, we can go over again how you and Billy lied your asses off about the mythbusters experiment. Shameful indeed, your behavior there was. It's a wonder you're still willing to show your faces here.
Also, if you'd like, we could point out the staggering stupidity of asking for a quick lab experiment that instantly predicts the temperature change on earth over many decades. Even rudimentary intelligence and common sense would have someone understanding how stupid that demand is, so only the most brainless religious fanatics make that demand.
HITRAN
That's been presented to jc before. He says those hundred papers don't count. Because he says so. He doesn't need any other reasons.
We've shown him many other experiments. jc says they all don't count. And never gives a reason. jc, along with Billy, just declare the last century of physics never happened, and they're sticking to that purely out of religious faith.
At this point, jc tends to run for cover by lying about the Koch experiment. Even his own source says he's full of shit, so jc pretends not to have seen that part of his source. This would be what jc always deliberately leaves out.
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.
---
jc, discuss the science. It's not honest to present an argument, and then deliberately leave out the next paragraphs that show the fatal flaws of the argument. That sort of chronic dishonesty is why nobody outside of your cult gives you the time of day, and never will, no matter how often you lie about not being shown the experiments.
Now, if you'd like, we can go over again how you and Billy lied your asses off about the mythbusters experiment. Shameful indeed, your behavior there was. It's a wonder you're still willing to show your faces here.
Also, if you'd like, we could point out the staggering stupidity of asking for a quick lab experiment that instantly predicts the temperature change on earth over many decades. Even rudimentary intelligence and common sense would have someone understanding how stupid that demand is, so only the most brainless religious fanatics make that demand.
Last edited:
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,761
- 39,231
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #237
Can you honestly say that you presented an experiment that doesn't have some predictive wording in it like could, might, or should? I'm looking for temperature readings of what 120 ppm of CO2 does to the temperatures.
And by the way, KOCH's 1901 experiment in that link has never been proven wrong. Period. You can blather on here all you want, and call me out, but you have still failed to present the experiment to disqualify Koch's experiment!
mamooth
Diamond Member
Absolutely yes. The spectral absorption properties of CO2 are hard numbers that are well-defined.
Which, again, is a stupid thing to ask for. It's like asking "show me the lab experiment that proves the ozone layer got thinner". An experiment in the lab can not exactly quantify what happens across the entire planet over many decades. An average third grader can understand such a simple concept. Since you can't, you really shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your nonsense prattle.
I just posted what disqualified it, and you refused to address it. That's what defines you, the way you always run from any data that shows how your science fails.
Here, I'll post it again, so you can run from it again.
---
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.
---
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 158,761
- 39,231
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #239
so I see you still don't understand. I see it is a comprehension issue. Temperature is everything, since your side states that 1 degree C is dangerous to earth climate. Explain how it isn't?
And as for Koch, in your link, all they state is that he didn't do something. There is no follow up experiment was there? Be honest here.
and then the abstract language you post up has one key word 'calculation' that destroys your entire argument. Here:
"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."
a calculation is not an experiment correct? Anyone can say anything, yet proving that point has yet to materialize.
And then there is:
"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."
Has this been proven in an experiment? Koch did prove it in his, the change did nothing. It is the on going hypothesis of the argument and yet to be presented in an actual experiment. In fact there are none. zero, because it will disprove the claim and grant money lost.
So dude/dudette, you fail to make your argument yet again.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Gavin Newsome depicts Nick Shirley as a Pedophile to deflect from MASSIVE fraud in California.- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Cesar Chavez, the "Me Too" Movement's Latest Target. Cesar. Freaking. Chavez.- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 4
